Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
. and, of course, their own country, lawyers have experience a lot of pain in the civil rights movement. so my question is, in line with the comment about practical steps, what would be a facing of the introduction of the rule of law that might be suggested to the chinese government and to chinese political and legal leaders as a way to avoid these calamitous events and bring about the rule of law? >> can you suggest to them that they pay the judges and say we will reducers our, we won't fire you? they might be willing to do that. and after they did that, you know, judges would love it, and nobody else would like it. but i mean, they would do, or maybe they would say we have an administrative law grow here. by the way, let's have all the corporate cities on television. the proceeding, i'm not saying the deliberations. why don't he they do that? let's not get into that. 5 let's have the trials and all those things. they do that. maybe they would, or maybe, what about this arbitration resolving business differences, would you be willing to take some the judges? after all, you're not payin
of the 1964 civil rights act. not all of it, just the problem part. i say there's only one -- [inaudible] in this so i'm not picking and choosing. quote: no person in the unite shall on the -- in the united states shall on the basis of color or national origin be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. that's what happened to abigail fisher. it's not disputed. she was treated different lit because of -- differently because of her race, color and national origin. now, we're not going to be talking so much about title vi tomorrow, we're going to be talking about the constitution because the supreme court said, well, that doesn't really mean what it says, you know? we think that it just means what the constitution means. and the constitution is, you know, has a little more egg l room,al -- wiggle l room,al l though not a lot. the constitution outlawed, i mean, the whole purpose of the equal protection or the 14th amendment was to outlaw racially-separate legal standards. that seems pretty straightforward too. and, you k
] there was no title vii. i graduated in 1959. title vii under the civil rights act was in 1964, all on discrimination on the basis -- outlawed discrimination on the basis of discrimination -- religion, and sex. and 1950s, law firms, and some of the finest graduates were saying they wanted no women. they would feel uncomfortable dealing with a woman, or as often her, we hired a woman at this from once, and she was dreadful. how many men did they hire that didn't work out? so it wasn't easy to get that first job. first job was all important because if you got it and performed well, then the next job was secure. well, i had a great professor, someone may know you -- some of you may know his name, he was the first constitutional law scholar, and he was in charge of getting judicial clerkship for columbia law school students. and i was special. he was determined to give me a federal clerkship. so he recommended me to a judge who always hired his law clerks from columbia. and then -- [inaudible] is ruth bader ginsburg. she has a four year old daughter. how can i rely on her? and the professor said, give he
country, of abuses of government. during the civil rights era, the government snooped on activists. during the vietnam era, the government snooped on antiwar protesters. in a digital age where computers can process billions of bits of information, we want the government to have unfettered access to every detail of our lives. from your visa statement, the government can determine what diseases you may or may not have, whether you're i am potent, manic, depressed, whether you're a gun owner, whether you buy ammunition, whether you're an animal rights activist, whether you're an environmental activist, what books you order, what blogs you read, what stores or internet sites you look at. do you really want your government to have free and unlimited access to everything you do on your computer? the fourth amendment was written in a different time and a different age, but its necessity and its truth are timeless. the right to privacy, and for that matter, the right to private property are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, but the ninth amendment says that the rights not stated are no
believe that our civil liberties and our right to privacy need to be protected, and i do not believe that they're sufficiently protected under the current law. and so, simply extending current law for five more years is irresponsible, and it's not a rephrebg shun of our -- reflection of our values. there are few ways this bill falls short and i'm especially concerned about the practice of reverse targeting. the deputy majority leader talked about it about an hour ago. the intelligence community does not need a warrant to conduct surveillance on someone located overseas, and i think we can all agree there is no problem there. the problem comes when the intelligence committee conducts surveillance on someone overseas where the real purpose is to gain information about someone right here in america. that can happen without a warrant, and we should not let that happen without a warrant. our national security is not threatened if we require this information to be tagged and sequestered and subject to judicial review. it would merely ensure that the information intercepted overseas in the
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5